II

Species Accounts

Andy Birch

PDF of Tule Greater White-fronted Goose account from: Shuford, W. D., and Gardali, T., editors. 2008. California Bird Species of Special Concern: A ranked assessment of species, subspecies, and distinct populations of birds of immediate conservation concern in California. Studies of Western Birds 1. Western Field Ornithologists, Camarillo, California, and California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento. Studies of Western Birds No. 1

TULE GREATER WHITE-FRONTED GOOSE (Anser albifrons elgasi) Bruce E. Deuel and John Y. Takekawa

Criteria Scores Population Trend 5 Range Trend 0 Winter Range Population Size 7.5 County Boundaries Range Size 10 Water Bodies Endemism 10

Kilometers Population Concentration 5 30 15 0 30 Threats 5 Winter range of the Tule Greater White-fronted Goose in California. Restricted mainly to the vicinity of federal and state refuges and the Butte Sink in the Sacramento Valley, Grizzly Island Wildlife Area and adjacent duck clubs in Suisun Marsh, and, marginally, the Napa Marshes. In some areas, numbers may have declined since 1944.

74 Studies of Western Birds 1:74–78, 2008 Species Accounts California Bird Species of Special Concern

Special Concern Priority (Becker 2000, M. Wolder in litt.); birds arrive in Suisun Marsh in mid-September (Becker 2000). Currently considered a Bird Species of Special On their way north in spring, these geese return Concern (wintering), priority 3. Not included on to the Klamath Basin and southern Oregon in prior special concern lists (Remsen 1978, CDFG February and March. Two decades ago, many of 1992). the Tule Geese migrated through the Klamath Basin (Wege 1984), but in the past decade fewer reeding ird urvey tatistics B B S S have been found in that area, while larger num- for California bers have occurred in southeastern Oregon in Does not breed in California. both fall and spring (Becker 2000).

General Range and Abundance Historic Range and Abundance in California Comprising four subspecies worldwide, the Greater White-fronted Goose (Anser albifrons) Historical accounts described the metropolis of has a nearly circumpolar Arctic breeding distribu- the wintering grounds of the Tule Goose to be in tion (Ely and Dzubin 1994, Ely et al. 2005). Two the vicinity of Butte Creek in Butte, Sutter, and subspecies breed in North America. The Pacific Colusa counties, with birds also occurring south Greater White-fronted Goose (A. a. frontalis) is to the vicinity of Suisun Marsh, Solano County composed of two populations: the Pacific popula- (Moffitt 1926, Grinnell and Miller 1944). These tion (approx. 300,000 individuals) breeds in west- authors thought the Tule Goose probably occurred central Alaska and migrates to winter in the Pacific more widely, but its status was clouded by confu- states and western Mexico; the midcontinent pop- sion over its identification and differing habits ulation (approx. 700,000 individuals) breeds in with respect to the more numerous A. a. albifrons northern and eastern Alaska east through Canada (now frontalis). Despite incomplete knowledge, to Hudson Bay and migrates through the Central Grinnell and Miller (1944) considered the Tule Flyway to winter in Texas, Louisiana, and central Goose “regular and formerly fairly common” as and eastern Mexico (Ely and Dzubin 1994, Ely a winter visitant. Moffitt (1938) described it as and Takekawa 1996). “fairly numerous locally in some years in mid- The known nesting range of the Tule Greater winter” in Suisun Marsh. Grinnell and Miller White-fronted Goose (A. a. elgasi, also known (1944) speculated that these geese must traverse a as A. a. gambeli or gambelli; see Dunn 2005 for route over northern California in migration, but a discussion of confusion over nomenclature) is they knew of no definite locales of occurrence for the upper Cook Inlet region of southern Alaska, migrant or staging birds. concentrated between the Susitna and Yentna rivers (Ely et al. 2006, 2007; Takekawa unpubl. Recent Range and Abundance data). The Tule Goose winters in California’s in California Central Valley, where it is sympatric with much The distribution of the Tule Goose has likely larger numbers of A. a. frontalis (Bauer 1979, not changed much since the time of Grinnell Wege 1984). and Miller (1944), though its local distribution in winter in the Central Valley is now known easonal tatus in alifornia S S C in greater detail (see map). Most are found on Present in California as a migrant and winter Sacramento, Delevan, and Colusa NWRs, as visitor, mainly from late August though April. well as adjacent duck clubs and rice fields, in the The first birds arrive in the Klamath Basin on central Sacramento Valley and in Suisun Marsh. the Oregon-California border in late August, and In the Sacramento Valley, a few birds have been much of the population stages there and in south- reported from Gray Lodge WA, the Butte Sink, eastern Oregon (Summer Lake, Warner Valley) and Sutter NWR (Hobbs 1999, Becker 2000, until late September or early October (Ely and B. E. Deuel pers. obs.). Generally, there is a Dzubin 1994, Ely and Takekawa 1996), before winter-long interchange of geese among the key migrating to the Central Valley for the winter. Sacramento Valley refuges and Grizzly Island WA Large numbers bypass these staging areas, how- in Suisun Marsh (Becker 2000). ever, and fly directly to the Sacramento Valley, Longhurst (1955) reported Tule Geese from before arriving in late August or early September marshes of the lower Napa River, Solano County,

Tule Greater White-fronted Goose 75 Studies of Western Birds No. 1 in December and January 1954–55. These were an abundance of Alkali Bulrush (Scirpus robus- the first he had seen in 25 years’ experience in the tus) and some open water (Wege 1980, Timm et area, and he speculated whether recent construc- al. 1982). During the hunting season (late Oct tion of a peripheral levee on an island had con- to late Jan), they shift to off-refuge rice fields tributed to the establishment of habitat favored and closed zones of refuges (Timm et al. 1982). by these geese. Subsequently, small numbers con- Hobbs (1999) found radio-tagged Tule Geese tinued to be reported in the vicinity of the Napa spent most of their foraging time in rice fields Marshes (Pacific Flyway Technical Subcommittee in the vicinity of Sacramento Valley refuges and 1991, L. Allen pers. comm.). returned to the refuges to roost in the day. The Prior to any systematic work, estimates in the distance that radio-tagged geese moved between late 1970s to early 1980s ranged from 2000 birds roosting and foraging sites increased from a mean for the total population (Bauer 1979) to 5000 of 3624 m (SD = 2907) in early winter to 5879 just for those wintering in the Sacramento Valley m (SD = 8396) in late winter. In Suisun Marsh, (Wege 1984). The most recent rough estimates for Tule Geese feed in ponds with Alkali Bulrush or the entire population vary from 5000 to 10,000 in barley or grass uplands on Grizzly Island WA individuals (CDFG files, USGS unpubl. data), (Becker 2000). In the Napa Marshes, they forage but ongoing mark-recapture studies should refine in tidal areas fringed with emergent cattails, tules, those estimates (CDFG unpubl. data). Counts on Alkali Bulrush, and cord grass (Spartina spp.), or the Sacramento Valley refuges totaled 5000–6000 with pickleweed (Salicornia spp.) and gumplant birds in the late 1980s, and peak counts at Grizzly (Grindelia spp.) in higher areas. In the Klamath Island WA in Suisun Marsh ranged from about Basin in fall, Tule Geese feed in ponds with Alkali 1000 to 1500 in the 1980s, with generally less Bulrush or in harvested grain fields (Wege 1980). than 500 birds there in the mid-1990s (Becker Tule Geese are primarily grazers but also grub 2000). Peak numbers in the Napa Marshes were for roots and shoots (Becker 2000). They feed reg- less than 50 individuals (Becker 2000), and num- ularly on the tubers of emergent plants, but also bers have dwindled below 20 in the past decade. forage on rice and corn in harvested fields, in asso- Lacking any long-term data, it is uncertain ciation with Pacific Greater White-fronted Geese, what the population trends have been for this in the Sacramento Valley (Hobbs 1999) and on subspecies. Still, given the loss of over 90% of sprouted grain in the Suisun and Napa marshes the Central Valley’s historic wetlands (Frayer et (Bauer 1979). Observations of a small number al. 1989), it seems that the population of the Tule of foraging birds and the contents of stomachs of Goose has more likely declined since the early two specimens from the Napa Marshes indicated 20th century than remained stable or increased. these individuals were foraging mainly on the The value of lost historic wetlands has been offset tubers and rhizomes of Alkali Bulrush (Longhurst to an unknown degree by the Central Valley Joint 1955), a plant they specialize on during spring in Venture’s recent efforts in increasing seasonal wet- the Klamath Basin (Wege 1984). lands and by the availability of about 162,000 to Tule Geese generally roost and loaf in open 202,000 ha of rice fields for foraging. water ponds with some emergent vegetation such as bulrushes or cattails. In Suisun Marsh, roosting Ecological Requirements areas have shallowly flooded uplands with a grass- pickleweed mixture (Becker 2000). In the winter, Tule Geese frequent marshes domi- Unlike Pacific Greater White-fronted Geese, nated by tules and bulrushes (Scirpus spp.) and which may occur in flocks of thousands of indi- cattails (Typha spp.), more so than any other goose viduals, Tule Geese associate in flocks of usually (Bellrose 1980). Tule Geese have a much larger less than 25 (Bauer 1979) but sometimes up to bill, longer neck, and larger feet, which makes 300–400 birds (M. Wolder in litt.). them suited to foraging in relatively deep marshes (Swarth and Bryant 1917, Wege 1984) in com- Threats parison with Pacific Greater White-fronted Geese, which are better adapted to glean and graze in Because of their primary adaptation to marshes, fields. Still, Tule Geese have had to compensate for Tule Geese have likely been impacted more by the loss of historic wetlands by foraging in agricul- the loss of historic wetlands than have other geese tural fields. In the Sacramento Valley, Tule Geese wintering in the Central Valley, which is now feed in harvested rice fields in early winter, then dominated by agricultural fields. What remains shift to winter flooded uplands and marshes with of their natural habitat in the wintering areas

76 Species Accounts California Bird Species of Special Concern is found mostly on state and federal managed protecting and enhancing wetlands for Tule wetlands, but some portion occurs on private Geese. wetlands managed for waterfowl hunting. To • Improve the understanding of this subspe- the extent that this private habitat may be lost if cies’ breeding range and habitats in rela- hunting declines in the future and with increasing tion to wintering populations and roosting development, Tule Geese may continue to lose areas. roosting habitat. However, this threat does not • Document new and monitor existing molt- appear to be serious at this time. Increased effi- ing and migration staging areas; determine ciency of grain harvest could have a tremendous limiting factors at these sites. effect on food availability (Ely and Dzubin 1994). • Examine the degree of genetic variation Likewise, some rice fields used by Tule Geese in with respect to other subspecies of Greater the Sacramento Valley (e.g., near Williams) have White-fronted Geese. been lost to development, converted to nongrain crops, or left fallow (M. Wolder in litt.). Tule Monitoring Needs Geese are dependent on marshes at spring staging Because of the difficulty in identifying Tule Geese areas, which at least in the Klamath Basin are at amid the larger number of Pacific Greater White- risk from over allocation of water for other inter- fronted Geese in the same areas, continuing efforts ests (D. Mauser pers. comm.). to monitor the population through unconven- Increased exploration and visitation near the tional means, such as collar-marked or radio- core breeding area south of Denali National Park marked samples, are needed. It would be valuable in Alaska may reduce productivity. Some migra- to use these or other means to continue to develop tion areas such as the Gandil River in southeastern more accurate methods for monitoring popula- Alaska are threatened by development. tion levels. Efforts are underway to estimate the Some biologists have expressed the opinion rate of misidentification between subspecies in that Tule Geese are less wary and fly lower surveys (J. Takekawa unpubl. data). Productivity than other Greater White-fronted Geese, making surveys and monitoring of harvest at hunter check them more vulnerable to hunting (Moffitt 1926, stations also should be continued, and possibly Bellrose 1980). However, there are no empirical increased with additional funding to permit the data or published studies verifying these state- use of employees dedicated to the purpose. ments. Nevertheless, increased intermixing with the growing population of Pacific Greater White- Acknowledgments fronted Geese provides fewer options for targeted management in the winter. A study on the cardiac We acknowledge the continuing work on Tule Geese response of Tule Geese to disturbance suggests that contributed to this report by D. Yparraguirre that birds react strongly when approached at 50 (CDFG), C. Ely (USGS, Alaska Science Center), m; such disturbance can have energetic costs to M. Wolder (UFWS, Sacramento NWR Complex), geese, particularly if it is prolonged prior to flush- T. Rothe (Alaska Dept. Fish and Game), and D. Orthmeyer (California Waterfowl Association). The ing (Ackerman et al. 2004). account was improved by comments from C. Ely, M. Wolder, and D. Yparraguirre. W. D. Shuford helped Management and Research with revisions. Recommendations Literature Cited • Continue restrictive hunting regulations in the core wintering range with mid- Ackerman, J. T., Takekawa, J. Y., Kruse, K. L., Orthmeyer, December closures until the population D. L., Yee, J. L., Ely, C. R., Ward, D. H., Bollinger, K. levels and trends are better known. S., and Mulcahy, D. M. 2004. Using radiotelemetry to monitor cardiac response of free-living Tule Greater • Identify additional habitat outside the fed- White-fronted Geese (Anser albifrons elgasi) to human eral and state refuges for possible protec- disturbance. Wilson Bull. 116:146–151. tion. Bauer, R. D. 1979. Historical and status report of the • Delineate and survey small populations Tule White-fronted Goose, in Management and outside of the Sacramento Valley, including Biology of Pacific Flyway Geese (R. L. Jarvis and J. those in the Suisun and Napa marshes. C. Bartonek, eds.), pp. 44–55. Oregon State Univ. • Determine specific roost site characteristics, Press, Corvallis, OR. winter diet, and other important character- Becker, D. R. 2000. Tule Greater White-fronted Goose istics of winter habitats to aid managers in (Anser albifrons gambelli), in Goals Project. Baylands

Tule Greater White-fronted Goose 77 Studies of Western Birds No. 1

ecosystem species and community profiles: Life his- Frayer, W. E., Peters, D. D., and Pywell, H. R. 1989. tories and environmental requirements of key plants, Wetlands of the California Central Valley: Status and fish, and wildlife (P. R. Olofson, ed.), pp. 253–258. trends. U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv., Portland, OR. Prepared by the San Francisco Bay Area Wetlands Grinnell, J., and Miller, A. H. 1944. The distribution of Ecosystem Goals Project. San Francisco Bay Regional the birds of California. Pac. Coast Avifauna 27. Water Quality Control Board, Oakland, CA. Hobbs, J. H. 1999. Fall and winter distribution and Bellrose, F. C. 1980. Ducks, Geese, and Swans of North habitat use of the Tule Greater White-fronted Goose America, 3rd ed. Stackpole Books, Harrisburg, PA. (Anser albifrons gambeli) in the Sacramento Valley, California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). California. Master’s thesis, Calif. State Univ., Sac- 1992. Bird species of special concern. Unpublished ramento. list, July 1992, Calif. Dept. Fish & Game, 1416 Ninth Longhurst, W. M. 1955. Additional records of “Tule St., Sacramento, CA 95814. Geese” from Solano County, California. Condor Dunn, J. L. 2005. Field impressions and other thoughts 57:307–308. about Tule Geese. Central Valley Bird Club Bull. Moffitt, J. 1926. Notes on White-fronted and Tule Geese 8:1–7. in central California. Condor 28:241–243. Ely, C. R., Bollinger, K. S., Densmore, R. V., Rothe, Moffitt, J. 1938. Environmental factors affecting T. C., Petrula, M. J., Takekawa, J. Y., and Orthmeyer, waterfowl in the Suisun area, California. Condor D. L. 2007. Reproductive strategies of northern geese: 40:76–84. Why wait? Auk 124:594–605. Pacific Flyway Technical Subcommittee. 1991. Pacific Ely, C. R., Bollinger, K. S., Hupp, J. W., Derksen, D. V., Flyway management plan for the Tule Greater White- Terenzi, J., Takekawa, J. Y., Orthmeyer, D.L., Rothe, fronted Goose. Pacific Flyway Study Committee. T. C., Petrula, M. J., and Yparraguirre, D. R. 2006. Unpublished report, U.S. Fish & Wildl. Serv., Transversing a boreal forest landscape: Summer Portland, OR. movements of Tule Greater White-fronted Geese. Remsen, J. V., Jr. 1978. Bird species of special concern Waterbirds 29:43–55. in California: An annotated list of declining or vul- Ely, C. R., and Dzubin, A. X. 1994. Greater White- nerable bird species. Nongame Wildl. Invest., Wildl. fronted Goose (Anser albifrons), in The Birds of North Mgmt. Branch Admin. Rep. 78-1, Calif. Dept. Fish & America (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.), no. 131. Acad. Game, 1416 Ninth St., Sacramento, CA 95814. Nat. Sci., Philadelphia. Swarth, H. S., and Bryant, H. C. 1917. A study of the Ely, C. R., Fox, A. D., Alisauskas, R. T., Andreev, A., races of the White-fronted Goose (Anser albifrons) Bromley, R. G., Degtyarev, A. G., Ebbinge, B., Gur- occurring in California. Univ. Calif. Publ. Zool. tovaya, E. N., Kerbes, R., Kondratyev, A. V., Kostin, 17:209–222. I., Krechmar, A. V., Litvin, K. E., Miyabayashi, Y., Timm, D. E., Wege, M. L., and Gilmer, D. S. 1982. Mooij, J. H., Oates, R. M., Orthmeyer, D. L., Sa- Current status and management challenges for Tule bano, Y., Simpson, S. G., Solovieva, D. V., Spindler, White-fronted Geese. Trans. N. Am. Wildl. and Nat. M. A., Syroechkovsky, Y. V., Takekawa, J. Y., and Resource Conf. 47:453–463. Walsh, A., Ausauskas R. T., and Utvin, K. E. 2005. Wege, M. L. 1980. Winter ecology of Tule White-fronted Circumpolar variation in morphological characteris- Geese in California. Progress report 1979–1980 tics of Greater White-fronted Geese Anser albifrons. (Project 909.10), U.S. Fish & Wildl. Serv., Northern Bird Study 52:104–119. Prairie Res. Ctr., Dixon, CA. Ely, C. R., and Takekawa, J. Y. 1996. Geographic varia- Wege, M. L. 1984. Distribution and abundance of Tule tion in migratory behavior of Greater White-fronted Geese in California and southern Oregon. Wildfowl Geese (Anser albifrons). Auk 113:889–901. 35:14–20.

78 Species Accounts